Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: btrfs-progs - supporting programs for btrfs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452691 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-06-24 13:36 EST ------- The only question I have involves the compiler flags; assuming x86_64, this package uses: -Wall -fno-strict-aliasing -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -g -Werror -Os whereas the defaults are -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -fexceptions -fstack-protector --param=ssp-buffer-size=4 -m64 -mtune=generic I've no particular issues with -Os versus -O2, but my understanding is that -fstack-protector is of some importance, at least. Any reason not to use our default compiler flags, perhaps with s/-O2/-Os/? * source files match upstream: ca261e50a5a66f7169b60d7bb5b9835e6284f4fa81d58e17d942fd3b4934618a btrfs-progs-0.15.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. ? Not sure about compiler flags: -Wall -fno-strict-aliasing -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 -g -Werror -Os * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: btrfs-progs = 0.15-3.fc10 = libuuid.so.1()(64bit) * %check is present; no test suite upstream. I cannot test this package. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review